http://universe.nasa.gov/"Astonishingly, all of these wild ideas are now known to be true. But now we must work toward the next step in our understanding. Einstein's legacy is incomplete - we do not understand the underlying physics of the very phenomena that came out of his theories."

Einsteinians will try to understand Einstein's theories by interpreting them in terms of Newton's particle model of light (that is, in terms of discontinuous structures confirmed by Einstein himself). Einstein has hinted at the final result:

Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html"Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes."

I think the campaign started much earlier - it is near completion now:

"Reading University's department is unlikely to be the only one in the UK that has "dropped below the level of viability". The trouble is, departments can't advertise their vulnerability for fear of losing talented research staff and scaring off prospective students."This is why we don't hear about it until it is too late," says Diamond."

"PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking, Britain's world-renowned physicist, is to switch from theories of multidimensional space to the three dimensions of the Imax cinema by starring in a film that sets out his ideas on the origins and fate of the universe.....His aim is to popularise science, but for many the appeal could also lie in the ability of an Imax 3D film to make Hawking and his wheelchair appear to come right out of the screen into the audience....Hawking has become a scientific icon, playing himself in episodes of The Simpsons and Star Trek....He is approached by Olivia, a reporter covering religious affairs for The Times, sister paper of The Sunday Times. She is writing a story about cosmology and the meaning of existence to commemorate the work of Albert Einstein and his special theory of relativity.... Mlodinow said that it would also include dramatised interviews with Einstein and other famous physicists such as Richard Feynman. "It will be like Groundhog Day meets Star Trek," he said....One aim of the film will be to silence the critics who point out that although A Brief History of Time sold millions of copies, few people actually get beyond the first few pages."

The main concern of Einstein's hypnotists is to camouflage the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and therefore Einstein's theory (and modern physics in general) is just a farce. The camouflage involves even simulated fights among hypnotists:

It is easy to see that hypnotists always discuss the idea of variability of the speed of light in a way that has nothing to do with Einstein's original definition of constancy (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source). In fact, in 1911 Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of light is VARIABLE:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star. Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

By applying the equivalence principle one could easily convert Einstein's formula into

c' = c + v

valid in the absence of a gravitational field, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Then one could remember Einstein's words:

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

1. The velocity vector is not defined, globally, in curves space-times, only locally.

One of Einstein's crucial discoveries is the fact that, if the quantity

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

is replaced by its Taylor approximation 1-v^2/2c^2, Einstein's lies about gravitational time dilation can be camouflaged to some extent. If Einstein had not made this discovery, that is, if the original quantity (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) had remained unchanged, the malignancy called relativity theory would not have killed theoretical science (perhaps).

Einstein's hypnotists do know about the crucial discovery and always replace (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) with 1-v^2/2c^2. Consider Problem 3 "Circular motion", (a) and (b), on p. 15, solution on p. 19, in

One of Einstein's crucial discoveries is the fact that, if the quantity

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

is replaced by its Taylor approximation 1-v^2/2c^2, Einstein's lies about gravitational time dilation can be camouflaged to some extent. If Einstein had not made this discovery, that is, if the original quantity (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) had remained unchanged, the malignancy called relativity theory would not have killed theoretical science (perhaps).

Einstein's hypnotists do know about the crucial discovery and always replace (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) with 1-v^2/2c^2. Consider Problem 3 "Circular motion", (a) and (b), on p. 15, solution on p. 19, in

In that problem, the approximation v<<c is necessary, otherwise it's not possible to write a = v^2/r and 1 + ar/c^2 = 1 + v^2/c^2. This because that equation is valid only on an Euclidean space-time (that is, FLAT) and this is not the case of a curved space-time.This because a = v^2/r comes from v = omega*r which comes from arc = angle*r which is true only on an Euclidean geometry. Think about a circumference drawn on a spherical surface, for example.

See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

quote:1910: Theodor Kaluza points out that there is nothing inherently paradoxical about the static and disk-riding observers obtaining different results for the circumference. This does however imply, he argues, that "the geometry of the rotating disk" is non-euclidean. He asserts without proof that this geometry is in fact essentially just the geometry of the hyperbolic plane.

Resolution of the paradox

The modern resolution of the "paradox" can be briefly summarized as follows:

1.Small distances measured by disk-riding observers are described by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric, which is indeed well approximated (for small angular velocity) by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza had claimed.

Photons move in a gravitational field and either undergo acceleration (e.g. their speed becomes c'>c=300000km/s) or do not undergo acceleration (that is, their speed remains c=300000km/s). If they undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to the variable speed of light, in accordance with the formula c'=Lf', where L is wavelength and f is frequency. If the photons do not undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength, in accordance with the formula c=L'f'. It is easy to see that c'=Lf' and c=L'f' are the only possibilities. Roughly speaking, either variable speed of light and no gravitational time dilation, or gravitational time dilation and constant speed of light.

Initially Einstein chose c'=Lf':http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm : "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star. Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

However later Einstein had to camouflage the fact that the frequency shift is due to variable speed of light and introduced gravitational time dilation - a concept extremely dangerous for human rationality. Two identical clocks in identical conditions (identical gravitational fields) allegedly have different rates. Rationality is immediately destroyed and the victim starts worshipping both the miracle and its creator.

However later Einstein had to camouflage the fact that the frequency shift is due to variable speed of light and introduced gravitational time dilation - a concept extremely dangerous for human rationality. Two identical clocks in identical conditions (identical gravitational fields) allegedly have different rates. Rationality is immediately destroyed and the victim starts worshipping both the miracle and its creator.

It's not allegedly, gravitational time dilation HAS BEEN PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY with atomic clocks on airplanes:

quote:Experimental confirmationGravitational time dilation has been experimentally measured using atomic clocks on airplanes. The clocks that traveled aboard the airplanes upon return were slightly fast with respect to clocks on the ground. The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect.

Gravitational time dilation has also been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, observations of the spectra of the white dwarf Sirius B and experiments with time signals sent to and from Viking 1 mars lander.

So one day wisdoms equivalent to "I measure you clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be faster than yours" will become part of the zombie world's common sense. As a consequence, the process Einstein's criminal cult sees as most important will never stop:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061024-105816-8997r.htm"Death can't stop celebrities from making millions....Rich, famous and dead: Seven musicians, a cartoonist and a theoretical physicist are among the 13 dead celebrities who earned a collective $247 million in the past year on royalties, publishing rights and licensing agreements from their famous names, images and creative works....It is an odd cultural moment indeed when fifth-place winner Albert Einstein manages to earn $20 million, not on his theory of relativity but for his brainy reputation and signature appearance."

In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time dilation factor

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor

1+V/c^2

where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor approximation

1-v^2/2c^2

and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition and sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful intellects have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the approximation 1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift factor 1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability of the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no suspicious approximations at all:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm : "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star. Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand, their honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they manage to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

Classically, Einstein's criminal cult extracted their billions from miracles deduced from Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. However a few years ago Einsteinians realized in horror that taxpayers were not excited anymore about a twin that sees his brother's clock running slow but then returns and proves younger etc. That was the end of the constant speed of light affair and a natural beginning of the variable speed of light affair.

The new business is dangerous for two reasons: first, variable speed of light could wipe out Einstein's criminal cult altogether; second, variable speed of light per se is unable to produce miracles and therefore excitement among taxpayers is by no means guaranteed. So new business plans involve the following tasks. First, the meaning of "variable" should be confused: the attention should shift from "depending on the speed of the light source" to something different, e.g. "faster in the past, slower now". Second, the variability of the speed of light should be served in fantastically small portions, so fantastically small that excitement is unavoidably restored and, what is even more important, Einstein's theory remains essentially correct:

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1"Testing the Limit of Einsteinís Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLASTís detector sooneróby about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what theyíre up against."

Dear Pentcho Valev. Dear, dear me. Is preaching appropriate behaviour for a scientist? Do you feel your use of emotive terminology somehow promotes your argument, strengthens your thesis? Are you blissfully unaware that phrases such as 'Einstein's criminal cult' say more about the writer than the object of his displeasure.My grasp of physics is poor. My understanding of human nature is, however, excellent. That alone allows me to reject your claims as unfounded.

Any Einsteinian would tell you violations of the theory entail reconsideration of the axioms: since Einstein's deductions are rigorous, false conclusions would imply false axioms. On the other hand, any breathtaking development of Einstein's relativity can only be triggered by violations and Einsteinians do wish to see that development - the present stalemate is disturbing even for them. The dilemma has an elegant solution: there are numerous violations indeed so the breathtaking development is imminent but those violations are tiny, so tiny that reconsideration of the axioms is not necessary:

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/4519.html :"Alan Kostelecky, Distinguished Professor of Physics at Indiana University Bloomington, has been elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science "for seminal contributions to relativity and spacetime symmetries, and for the development of a profound and comprehensive theoretical framework for relativity violations," according to a statement from AAAS....he realized that tiny violations of Einstein's relativity could be an experimental signal of the long-sought underlying theory unifying all known forces and particles....Kostelecky's theory has inspired many searches for relativity violations around the world, and more are being performed..... "The ongoing search for relativity violations is an impressive interdisciplinary effort," Kostelecky said."

Einsteinians reassure themselves in the following way. Since the violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false and therefore virtually true. The reassurance is quite explicit sometimes:

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1"Testing the Limit of Einsteinís Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLASTís detector sooneróby about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what theyíre up against."

Einsteinians know Einstein would disagree about "little falsehood". Once he said: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." However the solution Einsteinians have found is both elegant and all-embracing: Violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false, Einstein is just a little wrong.

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1"Testing the Limit of Einsteinís Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLASTís detector sooneróby about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what theyíre up against."

If photons have a slight, non zero rest mass, the speed of light would depend slightly on its frequency; nothing paradoxical would happen.

Quote

Einsteinians know Einstein would disagree about "little falsehood". Once he said: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." However the solution Einsteinians have found is both elegant and all-embracing: Violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false, Einstein is just a little wrong.

Only if the speed of light is equivalent to "the maximum speed of signal propagation", but this is not necessary. If the speed of light would actually be slightly less than that maximum speed, nothing would happen at the present level of experimental precision, and nothing would happen in the theory, because the value of c would be replaced with the very similar value of this maximum speed (which would be, in that case, the limit of light's speed for infinite frequency).

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9910/9910325.pdfGravitation Without Curved Space-timeKris Kroghp.12: "The gravitational frequency shift in Einsteinís 1911 variable-speed-of-light theory was v=v0(1+phi/c^2) which agrees with Eq. (13) to the first order. But there was no effect on lambda, or the dimensions of measuring rods, corresponding to Eq. (14). Consequently, the speed of light in a gravitational potential was c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

I have the impression that only the fiercest zombies are still defending Einstein's idiocies. Other members of Einstein's criminal cult are mercilessly removing Einstein's name from their websites while looking for another money-spinner. Bad news comes from everywhere:

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Theory-Correct-Paradoxical/dp/1425104819AMAZON: Einstein's Relativity Theory: Correct, Paradoxical & Wrong (Paperback) by Lyubomir T. Gruyitch. "It accepts severely restrictive, physically unacceptable in general, assumptions that Einstein lifted up to the untouchable postulates. Consequently, his relativity theory and its developments represent a singular case valid only when the assumptions hold, rather than a general relativity theory. They are physically valid only if the Lorentz transformations are physically applicable, which does not happen even for simple systems used in Einstein's relativity theory as illustrative ones."

In 1964 Einsteinians discovered that Einstein's inconsistency, like any other inconsistency, is based on two incompatible principles: the principle of invariability of the speed of light and the principle of variability of the speed of light. They called the discovery "a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory" and made use of it in the sense of extracting money from it:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp :"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field. He had proposed an observational test to check his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury, and measure the round trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 microseconds more than it would if the sun was not present. Later on, using the MIT Haystack radar antenna, the experiment was repeated, matching Shapiro's predicted amount of time delay. The experiments have been repeated many times since, with increasing accuracy. This experiment had for the first time shown that the constants like c and G, assumed constants in Einstein's SR theory suffered local (or regional) in the proximity of massive bodies like the sun. Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position..."

J. Mulligan, INTRODUCTORY COLLEGE PHYSICS, McGraw-Hill, 1985, pp.631-632:"Sir Isaac Newton had proposed a particle theory of light which explained the refraction of light by the difference in the forces exerted on the particles by the two media, the more dense medium exerting a larger force and causing light to move more rapidly. A measurement of the speed of light in water, made by Foucault in 1850, clearly showed that light has a lower speed in water than in air, and that Newton's theory must therefore be wrong."

If Newton's theory is wrong the more dense medium cannot cause light to move more rapidly (if it can Newton's theory is right). The educator should have stated clearly: Newton wrong means the speed of light is constant (does not vary with position) in either medium, only at the boundary it suddenly changes. However the educator knows Newton is right. Even Einstein knew Newton was right:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star. Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

As for the fact that light has a lower speed in water than in air, it is irrelevant. As the photon enters the more dense medium (water), its INITIAL speed is higher than the speed it had in the less dense medium (air) before the acceleration. So far Newton is right. If Newton thought this initial high speed in the more dense medium remained constant all along then he was mistaken but the mistake is immaterial. His theory of refraction based on the concept of variable speed of light remains correct.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.